From: Nima T. <ni...@jc...> - 2005-07-21 08:40:18
|
Hey Andy, Good to hear from you again, thought you might have been abducted. If I can help in any coding/testing let me know, I'd be more than glad to help. Doing so will help me write better man pages too, so its all good. Nima Andrew Ruder wrote: > Ok guys, > > Last night I looked at all my local changes that have not been committed > to subversion and what really needs to be done to fix Rob and others' > existing problems (as well as finish the documentation for Nima). > > Currently my changes include several changes towards making trustees use > general 2.6 kernel semantics. There are several problems with the > source code. For example, there is a single implementation of linked > lists in the kernel, but trustees is still using its own. There are > other similar problems where trustees is simply using old-style code > instead of 2.6ish code. This needs to be fixed as it greatly simplifies > the code. > > Also, there needs to be a overhaul on how trustees are stored in their > data structures. There needs to be a quick way to find out if the > trustees on one directory are the exact same as those on another > directory. Also, there needs to be a -=very=- fast way to determine > trustees for a directory. Try making a 600-deep directory structure > someetime and touching some files in there, your system cpu usage will > hit the top as trustees tries to process that big of a directory tree. > Both of these changes will be necessary for Rob to see what he wants > (and to fix several bugs on the SF.net page). > > Also, I am going to do something with the settrustees script. There may > be some sort of settrustees backend which actually sends it, and a perl > or python frontend which takes care of 99% of the logic. I hate writing > parsing code in C and I would be able to integrate a lot of Nima's > excellent work on his python scripts. > > In any case, I am certain that these changes will require many changes > to the code, and changes mean lots of testing. Since the new release > has come out, it took a while until it stabilized; and I still get the > occasional oops report. (Although, it has been running stable as a rock > on my machine). > > So what I am considering is just putting out a 3.0 with the one small > subversion fix I have and last night I cleaned up the makefiles to work > the -=correct=- way. (Was having some problem installing into the > correct location on newer kernels). > > Also with this, I would make the patches to several kernels to allow > compiling trustees into the kernel instead of just as a module. > > This would allow a stable release to be out there while these bigger > changes are going in. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies > from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to > speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > _______________________________________________ > trustees-general mailing list > tru...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/trustees-general |